Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This isn't an article, it consists of nothing other than a template. If a proper use can't be found for the template, then that's probably a good indication that we don't actually need it. PC78 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:


 * I am the creator of both articles. Thank you for leaving a note on my Talk page. Since the pages are not yet 24h old, you could have found my name easy in History's first page, circa row 5.-DePiep (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nom, the second sentence reads like it is about the template, not the article. Could you clarify? Also, since the page is barely 19hrs old when nominated, could you explain why you skipped all thoughts re stubbing and tagging? -DePiep (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * More to the point, can you explain why you have created these two articles merely for the purpose of transcluding the templates? Is there no pre-existing article where they could be used? If not, can these be built into genuine articles? Discussion about the templates cannot be divorced entirely from discussion about the articles. Either the articles are unnecessary, or the templates (which appear to be single use) are, in which case they should be substituted and deleted, or they both are. PC78 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep . Nom is trolling. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, his question is entirely justified. Please answer it. Yoenit (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The nom suggests in the non-answer my questions were not to the point. I still think they are valid. -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My point here is, that the nom does not treat the article and templates as a stub. Within 20 hrs after creation, the only tag they can think of is AfD. They could have added stub, added issue (maintenance) hatnotes, and there are four talkpages available (plus mine makes five). None was used. In OP the nom did not contemplate merging or improving at all. It only says: "I don't get it, so delete". And concluding "single use" within one day is showing their impatience, no more. Calling my questions not "to the point" in the very thread where I put them, and then starting another thread is off-topic and trolling. They could have asked these questions elsewhere (and, of course, beforehand). Now since other editors have contributed, I struck my speedy keep here and will conclude later in the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not trolling. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained and answered below, in a more becoming language. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest:
 * (1)Merge both to International Phonetic Alphabet, as they currently don't do anything except transclude a template. Those two templates should be transcluded on the IPA article instead. So redirecting the articles to the IPA article, and moving the transclusions over would fix the problem of lack of content except for a single template transclusion.
 * (2)Copy Transwiki both templates to Wiktionary, as this would be very useful on Wiktionary's IPA appendices, to figure out how to pronounce all those squiggly characters across the dictionary entries on Wiktionary.
 * 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * re Merge: more likely the template, not the article, will be transcluded into IPA (and Vowel, and Consonant). There could be a question of the chart being repeated, which I planned to Talk at the appropriate place.
 * re Transwiki: well, that says something about usefulness then? But I suggest the template should be transcluded, not the article. We might expect that the article here will be improved with text and sources and so. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the transwiki-tag from article to template (twice). I cannot judge correctness of the transwiki proposal, it is not my field of knowledge. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no reason to merge the article as the only content is a template transclusion. We can just delete the article and transclude the template on the other page. Transwiki to wiktionary is an excellent idea, but once again we don't need the article for that, just the template itself. Yoenit (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notified IPA -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes: nom writes: If a proper use can't be found - from hour 1 each article was linked to from over 230 pages in mainspace.
 * I'll add a stub-template (twice). Those thinking about deletion, please keep in mind that the articles are created to grow. These stubs just did not start with an elementary text, but with a template. Why should it not become something like this? -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to show it was linked from over 230 pages? I find that hard to believe, as it is currently linked from around 25 and only because you modified Template:IPA consonant chart to include a link to the page. With regards to the periodic table article link, I have no idea why we need 16 versions of the periodic table in stand-alone articles|, so I am starting a discussion about it elsewhere. WP:OTHERSTUFF should explain why they are not relevant to this AFD. Yoenit (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:IPA consonant chart is in IPA navigation, which is on ~230 pages in article space. WLH is lagging, so you don't see them directly yet. I mention the Periodic Table not as "other stuff exists" (I'm not proving a negative point), but as and example of an complete article that is based on a table, rather than on a text primarily. The periodic table comes in multiple forms here at WP, because the Table has multiple angles of approaching (e.g. level of detail). It is illustrating my idea that the articles (based on a table) discussed here should grow into complete articles. -DePiep (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete These are not even articles, they're just copies of templates that already exist. This is easy; I don't know why we're even wasting time discussing it. Also, DePiep, leaving a hundred messages here is not helping your cause, and accusing the initiator of this discussion of trolling for no good reason is certainly not; I suggest you calm down and let others comment. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep it or at least integrate it into another IPA article, as I was actually thinking that it would be nice to have all sound files on one page, so you can compare without delay, and the sound is still in your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.152.77.199 (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * — 95.152.77.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is not my post. Do not understand why Rjanag is asking me in es. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. After a good rest I'll explain and answer why the situation is as it is now. I promise to stay away from the incendiaries and I have left the matches at home. I'll talk about a singular article & template, but almost everything pertains to the other pair as well.
 * - As for the need. When describing the IPA Phonetic Alphabet, it is quite encyclopedic to connect a phonetic sound to an alphabetical symbol. And this is what the sound-chart does. This is true, regardless of the form or article the sound-chart appears in.
 * - Next, when and where to use the sound-chart in WP? First idea is: in the existing article consonant (vowel respectively), or in IPA (both sound-charts). But I did not put them there right away because of editorial reasons. First reason: the sound-chart is big, and considerations of readability of the result might come into play. Second reason, the IPA chart (without sound) is there already, so there would be a repetition of the basic chart. Both reasons have no cut and dried outcome, and it was my expectation and aim that a "merge" or "how to improve usage" discussion would arise, by creating the article. All this is editorial and would appear on a talk page involving co-editors. Imo the outcome should not be on an AfD page, which implies a time-strained decision and is not the place to involve content-savvy editors in the first place.
 * - Side note 1: A template with soundlinks (but without the chart structure), Vowels with audio, is deployed already and its replacement will be part of the discussion. Meanwhile, its current usage is supporting the "need" for a sound-chart.
 * - Side note 2: When, in the end, the template would be single-use only a final substitution could be proposed. But for maintainability of a complicated template I prefer breaking that rule.
 * - So, I did not want to plunge a big template, adding a duplication, in the existing article. Instead I created an article, a stub clearly, to make the sound-chart available. I see no reason why the stub could not become non-stub. The article is linked to, e.g. from the IPA navigation box. By definition fellow editors can improve the article, and start a merge-discussion. The only strange thing is that the stub is initially a chart, not a basic text. So be it, there is nothing wrong with that.
 * - I have no exact claim into "should stay article", nor "should be merged". I do state that the sound-chart, which is encyclopedic in essence, should stay to develop from stub and to be discussed for further usage. Both sequences are editorial, and these two developments should not be imposed by AfD.
 * - So I conclude keep to allow development and start merge-proposal on talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those are arguments in favor of keeping this "article", they are arguments in favor of keeping the template, which is an unrelated issue. There is no principled reason why we can't delete this unnecessary page and transclude the template elsewhere, such as IPA or in the WP namespace (something comparable to WP:IPA). The fact of the matter is, this page is not an article, it's just a template transclusion. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion of the templates is in the nom's proposal, full stop. Speedy deleting the article (as you proposed) would leave the template zero-use. And I did write why the chart was not put in another page, so it required an article to be available. Finally, being a stub is no reason for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant of what the nominator said, this is AFD and it is not about the deletion of the template, only the article. Also, nobody in this discussion seems to think the template should be deleted, they just think it should not be on a separate page. If Rjanag really wanted the article speedy deleted he should have stated a criteria as well, right now it just shows the editor does not understand WP:CSD. Yoenit (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is pretty clearly encyclopedic content. The technical aspects of whether the content is formatted within the article or in a template are irrelevant to a deletion discussion, as they make no difference to what it presented to our readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Phil, no one is saying that encyclopedic content should be deleted. The encyclopedic content is already available in a template, . The page under discussion here is basically nothing but a transclusion of that template. Why do we need an "article" that does nothing but transclude a template? The template can already be transcluded elsewhere, such as in the IPA article, and in fact already has been. This discussion is not about deleting the template; it's about deleting an unnecessary page that happens to transclude the template. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that an article is visible to our readers, the vast majority of whom find our content via web searches, but a template is not. The technical details of how the article is constructed, such as whether coding for the table is in the article itself or transcluded from a template, are irrelevant to our purpose of presenting content to those readers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just add a few sentences of context. I agree it should not be the bare template, but that's fixable.    DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.